52272 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 16, 

2012. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21285 Filed 8–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1221 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2011–0064] 

Safety Standard for Play Yards 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(Commission, CPSC, us, or we) is 

proposing to amend the play yard 

mandatory standard. This proposed rule 

would address the hazards associated 

with the use of play yard bassinet 

accessories that can be assembled with 

missing key structural elements. The 

amendment is being proposed pursuant 

to section 104(b) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (CPSIA), also known as the 

‘‘Danny Keysar Child Product Safety 

Notification Act’’ which requires us to 

promulgate consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products. 

DATES: Submit comments by November 

13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CPSC Docket No. CPSC– 

2011–0064 by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

directly accepting comments submitted 

by electronic mail (email), except 

through www.regulations.gov. The 

Commission encourages you to submit 

electronic comments by using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described above. 

Written Submissions: Submit written 

submissions in the following way: Mail/ 

Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, 

or CD–ROM submissions), preferably in 

five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this proposed 

rulemaking. All comments received may 

be posted without change, including 

any personal identifiers, contact 

information, or other personal 

information provided, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information that you do not 

want to be available to the public. If 

furnished at all, such information 

should be submitted in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC–2011–0064, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory K. Rea, Project Manager, 

Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; 

email: GRea@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

In the Federal Register of September 

20, 2011 (76 FR 58167), we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to 

establish a safety standard for play yards 

pursuant to section 104(b) of the CPSIA, 

also known as the ‘‘Danny Keysar Child 

Product Safety Notification Act.’’ On 

June 6, 2012, a draft final rule on play 

yards was submitted to the Commission 

for their consideration. The draft final 

rule incorporated by reference ASTM 

F406–12a, ‘‘Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Non-Full-Size Baby 

Cribs/Play Yards.’’ The draft final rule 

included one additional requirement 

not present in ASTM F406–12a. That 

requirement would have addressed the 

hazards associated with the use of play 

yard bassinet accessories that can be 

assembled with missing key structural 

elements. We refer to this provision in 

this document as the ‘‘bassinet 

misassembly requirement.’’ The bassinet 

misassembly requirement was created 

after we received a comment in 

response to the play yard NPR. 

On June 27, 2012, the Commission 

voted unanimously to approve 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the draft final rule to establish a safety 

standard for play yards. Today, 

elsewhere in the Federal Register, we 

are publishing the final rule, which 

reflects several changes directed by the 

Commission in its vote. Specifically, the 

Commission voted to remove the 

bassinet misassembly requirement from 

the draft play yard final rule submitted 

by staff. In light of that, the Commission 

also voted to provide a 6-month 

effective date for the safety standard for 

play yards, instead of 12 months as 

stated in the draft final rule because the 

recommendation for a 12 month 

effective date was based on the 

inclusion of the bassinet misassembly 

requirement. In addition, the 

Commission directed staff to draft and 

publish an NPR seeking comment 

regarding an amendment to the play 

yard mandatory standard to include the 

bassinet misassembly requirement, 

which is the subject of this notice. The 

Commission’s Order, as well as 

Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum’s 

statement on the final rule to establish 

a safety standards for play yards, can be 

viewed at: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/ 

foia/ballot/ballot12/ballot12.html. 

B. Description of the Proposed Rule 

1. Summary of the Hazard and the 

Infant Fatality 

In August 2011, we received a report 

of an infant fatality in the bassinet 

accessory of a play yard. The child died 

when the sleeping surface of the 

bassinet tilted, causing the child to slip 

into the corner where she suffocated. A 

review of the In-Depth Investigation 

Report (IDI) 110825CAA2853, as well as 

our tests on an exemplar model of the 

bassinet accessory and play yard 

involved in the fatality, led us to 

conclude that the incident was caused 

by the omission of key structural 

elements. 

Many play yards are sold with 

accessories that attach to the product, 

such as bassinets, changing tables, and 

mobiles. Bassinet accessories are unique 

among play yard accessories because 

they are intended to be used as a 

sleeping environment, and infants are 

meant to be left unsupervised in them 

for extended periods of time. Serious 

injuries or fatalities can result if a play 

yard bassinet accessory has been 

assembled without key structural 

elements, such as rods, tubes, bars, and 

hooks, which keep the sleep surface flat 

and level. A tilt in the sleeping surface 

of the bassinet can result in an infant 

getting into a position where he or she 

is unable to breathe and is at risk of 

suffocation. 

As seen in the IDI, it is possible that 

the omission of key structural elements 

may not initially be visually evident to 

the consumer. If the misassembled 

accessory supports an infant without a 

catastrophic and obvious change to the 

sleep surface, a consumer may continue 

to use the accessory and inadvertently 

place a child in danger. If the bassinet’s 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 52273 

sleep surface tilts while the child is 

unsupervised, the condition may not be 

discovered by the caregiver for hours, 

placing the child in a potentially fatal 

situation. 

Initially, the IDI completed for the 

fatality in August 2011 indicated that 

the tilt in the sleeping surface was 

caused by the detachment of plastic 

clips attached to the bassinet shell that 

secured the shell to the side rails of the 

play yard. Sometime after the child was 

placed in the bassinet accessory, one of 

the plastic clips detached. However, our 

testing indicates that detachment of one 

of the plastic clips is not enough to 

cause the tilt in the sleeping surface that 

led to the fatality. Indeed, the plastic 

clips caused the consumer to 

erroneously assume that the product 

was safe, when key structural elements, 

the supporting rods, were missing. 

The requirement we are proposing 

here will address this hazard. 

Manufacturers will be given two ways to 

comply. The first way to comply 

prevents misassembly by requiring that 

all key structural elements be attached 

permanently to the bassinet shell. The 

second method of compliance is 

designed to alert consumers if a key 

structural element is missing by 

requiring that the removal of even one 

key structural element results in a 

catastrophic failure of the bassinet. The 

test for this method of compliance is 

referred to as the ‘‘catastrophic failure 

test’’ in this document. 

2. The Bassinet Misassembly 

Requirement 

Most bassinet accessories consist of a 

fabric shell that is attached to the side 

rails of the play yard. The shell is 

supported by rods, tubes, bars, or hooks. 

The segmented mattress pad that is used 

on the floor of the typical play yard is 

inserted into the bassinet shell. 

The requirement we are proposing 

offers two avenues for compliance. First, 

the bassinet accessory would meet the 

requirement if all of the key structural 

elements are attached permanently to 

the bassinet accessory. Thus, 

manufacturers who attach the support 

rods, tubes, bars, or hooks permanently 

into the bassinet shell would not need 

to have their product tested to this 

requirement. 

If a manufacturer chooses not to 

permanently attach key structural 

elements to the bassinet, the bassinet 

would have to be tested by removing 

each key structural element and 

numbering them from 1 through n. 

Subsequently, all the key structural 

elements are put back into place. Key 

structural element number 1 is then 

removed from the bassinet. In order to 

pass the test, when an anthromorphic 

infant dummy is placed in the center of 

the sleep surface, the product must: (1) 

Collapse completely, or (2) tilt more 

than 30°. The angle of 30° represents a 

safety factor of three times the 10° 

maximum safe sleep surface angle of 

incline. Our Human Factors staff 

concluded that an angle of 30° would be 

sufficiently visually obvious to a 

consumer, such that the consumer 

would be discouraged from continuing 

to use the bassinet. The test continues 

until each key structural element has 

been tested individually (thus, key 

structural element number 1 is inserted 

back into the product, key structural 

element number 2 is removed, and the 

test is repeated.) We refer to this test as 

the ‘‘catastrophic failure test.’’ 

The requirement is meant to ensure 

that the omission of a key structural 

element is so visually obvious that the 

consumer will not use the product and 

place the child in danger inadvertently. 

It should be noted that in order to pass 

this test, the item must fail 

catastrophically when each key 

structural element is omitted. 

Most manufacturers will use rods, 

tubes, bars, or hooks to support the 

bassinet shell. Thus, the mattress pad is 

not a key structural element under this 

provision, unless the manufacturer 

chooses to stiffen the mattress pad itself 

in order to provide structural support to 

the bassinet. If the mattress pad 

provides the structural support for the 

bassinet, it becomes a key structural 

element and must either be attached 

permanently to the bassinet or designed 

in such a way that omission of the 

mattress pad causes the bassinet to 

become obviously unusable. 

In addition to the performance 

requirement and test method, we are 

also proposing to modify one definition, 

add one definition, and include several 

graphics in the mandatory play yard 

standard in order to ensure that this 

requirement is clear to play yard 

suppliers and testing laboratories. We 

are modifying the definition of ‘‘key 

structural elements’’ to include ‘‘the 

components that provide the supporting 

frame and/or means of attachment for a 

bassinet/cradle accessory.’’ We are also 

proposing to add a new term, ‘‘bassinet/ 

cradle accessory,’’ defined as ‘‘a 

supported sleep surface that attaches to 

a non-full-size crib or play yard 

designed to convert the product into a 

bassinet/cradle intended to have a 

horizontal sleep surface while in a rest 

(non-rocking) position.’’ 

We are proposing to include four new 

graphics that will assist stakeholders in 

understanding the new requirement. 

The first is a figure of the ‘‘CAMI 

Newborn Dummy’’ that will be used in 

the bassinet misassembly test method. 

In other ASTM standards, the reference 

to a CAMI Dummy is included at the 

beginning of the standard in a section 

titled, ‘‘Referenced Documents.’’ 

Consistent with ASTM custom, we are 

adding the CAMI Newborn Dummy to 

this section, accompanied by a footnote 

to indicate that the figure we are using 

is copied from a drawing provided by 

the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

We are also proposing to include 

three other graphics to illustrate: (1) 

examples of bassinet/cradle key 

structural elements; (2) the infant CAMI 

dummy positioned for the bassinet/ 

cradle accessory sleep surface test; and 

(3) the bassinet/cradle accessory sleep 

surface test angle measurement. 

3. Consultation With the ASTM Play 

Yard Subcommittee 

The requirement we are proposing 

was created with the assistance of key 

stakeholders, such as manufacturers, 

third party test laboratories, consumer 

advocates, and CPSC staff. In early 2012, 

we approached the ASTM Play Yard 

subcommittee and asked that the infant 

fatality reported to us in August 2011 be 

reviewed, and, if possible, a 

requirement be developed to address 

injuries and fatalities that can result 

from play yard bassinet accessories that 

are assembled incorrectly. The 

subcommittee formed a task group, 

which met six times from January 

through April 2012, and was comprised 

of major stakeholders, including 

manufacturers, third party test 

laboratories, consumer advocates, and 

CPSC staff. 

The result of the task group’s efforts 

is the language proposed here and is 

intended to address the specific hazard 

that resulted in the death of the infant. 

The requirement and test method apply 

only to bassinet accessories, and only 

address hazards associated with 

assembling the bassinet without key 

structural elements. 

C. Effective Date of Final Rule 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the final rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for play 

yard manufacturers to come into 

compliance, we recommend that this 

proposed amendment to the play yard 

standard become effective 6 months 

after the publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register. We invite 

comment on how long it will take play 

yard manufacturers to come into 

compliance. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52274 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires 

agencies to consider the impact of 

proposed rules on small entities, 

including small businesses. Section 603 

of the RFA requires us to prepare an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis and 

make it available to the public for 

comment when the NPR is published. 

The initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

must describe the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. In 

addition, it must identify any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

would accomplish the stated objectives 

of the rule and, at the same time, reduce 

the economic impact on small 

businesses. Specifically, the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis must 

contain: 

• A description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

• A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

• A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

• A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities subject to 

the requirements, and the type of 

professional skills necessary for the 

preparation of reports or records; and 

• Identification, to the extent 

possible, of all relevant federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the proposed rule. 

2. The Market 

There are 21 domestic firms known to 

be producing or selling play yards in the 

United States. Ten are domestic 

manufacturers, and 11 are domestic 

importers. Under the U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA) 

guidelines, a manufacturer of play yards 

is small if it has 500 or fewer 

employees, and an importer is 

considered small if it has 100 or fewer 

employees. Based on these guidelines, 

nine domestic manufacturers and 10 

domestic importers known to supply 

play yards to the U.S. market are small 

businesses. The remaining domestic 

entities are one large manufacturer and 

one large importer. There are also three 

foreign firms supplying play yards to 

the U.S. market. There may be 

additional unknown small 

manufacturers and importers operating 

in the U.S. market. 

3. Impact of the Standard on Small 

Businesses 

Not every play yard manufacturer 

makes a bassinet accessory for their 

product. However, the majority of 

known small play yard manufacturers 

have a least one model that includes a 

bassinet accessory. For these firms, in 

order to meet this proposed 

requirement, they will have to: (1) 

Modify their existing designs in order to 

attach key structural elements to the 

bassinet accessory permanently, or (2) 

design the accessory such that it is 

obviously unusable when any one key 

structural element is left out. 

It is likely that most suppliers will 

choose to comply with this requirement 

by attaching key structural elements to 

the bassinet accessory permanently. We 

know of one manufacturer who 

produces a play yard with a bassinet 

accessory that is already compliant with 

this requirement. Several of the firms 

impacted by this new requirement were 

involved in the ASTM language 

development process and have 

indicated that they are moving toward 

attaching key structural elements to play 

yard bassinet accessories permanently. 

The cost to manufacturers who elect to 

meet the requirement in this way is 

expected to be minimal, primarily 

involving additional stitching, rivets, or 

other methods of attachment. 

At least one manufacturer anticipates 

meeting the requirement by designing 

the accessory such that it is obviously 

unusable when key structural elements 

are left out. This approach is likely to 

be more costly than permanently 

attaching key structural elements 

because, currently, no design has been 

identified by manufacturers that would 

succeed in failing visibly when each key 

structural element is removed 

individually. 

The impact on small importers will be 

similar. If an importer’s existing 

supplier is not willing to comply with 

the bassinet misassembly provision, the 

importer would need to find an 

alternate source. If that is not possible, 

these firms could respond to the rule by 

discontinuing the importation of play 

yards. The impact of this decision could 

be mitigated by replacing play yards 

with a different infant or toddler 

product. Deciding to import an 

alternative infant or toddler product 

would be a reasonable and realistic way 

to offset any lost revenue. 

4. Alternatives 

Setting an effective date longer than 6 

months could reduce the impact. This 

would allow small manufacturers 

additional time to make necessary 

changes to their product, and it would 

allow small importers more time to find 

alternative sources. It would also allow 

entities to spread costs over a longer 

period of time. 

5. Conclusion of the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

It is possible that the proposed 

amendment, if finalized, could have a 

significant impact on some small 

businesses. For manufacturers, the 

extent of these costs could entail 

expensive product redesign. Importers 

may need to find alternative sources of 

play yards or replace play yards with 

another infant or toddler product. 

We invite comments describing: 

• The possible impact of this rule on 

small manufacturers and importers; and 

• Significant alternatives to the 

proposed rule that would accomplish 

the stated objectives of the proposed 

rule, and at the same time, reduce the 

economic impact on small businesses. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521 

ASTM F406–12a, which is 

incorporated by reference into the play 

yard standard codified at 16 CFR part 

1221, requires labels and instructions be 

supplied with the product. The PRA 

requirements for the play yard standard 

codified at 16 CFR part 1221 have been 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), and OMB has 

assigned control number 3041–0152 to 

the information collection. We estimate 

that there are no additional burden 

hours associated with this proposed 

amendment. 

F. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether we are required to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. Our 

rules generally have ‘‘little or no 

potential for affecting the human 

environment,’’ and therefore, they are 

exempt from any requirement to prepare 

an environmental assessment or impact 

statement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). This 

rule falls within the categorical 

exemption. 

G. Preemption 

Section 26(a) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 

2075(a), provides that where a consumer 

product safety standard is in effect and 

applies to a product, no state or political 

subdivision of a state may establish or 

continue in effect a requirement dealing 

with the same risk of injury, unless the 

state’s requirement is identical to the 

federal standard. Section 26(c) of the 

CPSA also provides that states or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 52275 

political subdivisions of states may 

apply to the Commission for an 

exemption from this preemption under 

certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of 

the CPSIA refers to the rules to be 

issued under that section as ‘‘consumer 

product safety rules,’’ thus, implying 

that the preemptive effect of section 

26(a) of the CPSA would apply. 

Therefore, a rule issued under section 

104 of the CPSIA will invoke the 

preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the 

CPSA when the rule becomes effective. 

H. Testing and Certification 

Pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA, play yards must be certified by 

the manufacturer to the mandatory 

standard based on testing conducted by 

a CPSC-accepted third party conformity 

assessment body. The third party testing 

and certification requirement for this 

proposed amendment to the play yard 

standard will not be in effect until the 

proposal is final and effective, and we 

issue a final notice of requirements 

(NOR). The NOR establishes 

requirements for how third party 

conformity assessment bodies can 

become accepted by us to test play 

yards. Play yard manufacturers will be 

required to certify products to the play 

yard standard, including this proposed 

amendment if it is finalized, based on 

third party testing once we have 

accepted the accreditation of such 

laboratories. 

I. Request for Comments 

We invite all interested persons to 

submit comments on any aspect of the 

proposed rule. Comments should be 

submitted in accordance with the 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this notice. 

Specifically, we invite comments on 

the following: 

• Whether this proposed requirement 

and test method will address the 

hazards associated with play yard 

bassinet accessories that can be 

assembled with missing key structural 

elements, and if not, what alternative 

requirements and test methods would 

address this hazard; 

• Whether the second avenue of 

compliance, referred to as the 

‘‘catastrophic failure test’’ is necessary, 

or if manufacturers should be required 

to attach all key structural elements 

permanently; 

• Whether the CAMI Newborn 

Dummy, weighing 7.5 pounds, is 

appropriate to use for the catastrophic 

failure test, and if it is not, what should 

be used; 

• Whether the language of the 

proposed requirements and test 

methods should be changed in order to 

improve repeatability and clarity, and if 

so, what those changes should be; 

• Whether 6 months is an appropriate 

effective date for this provision; and 

• Descriptions of the possible impact 

of this proposed requirement on small 

manufacturers and importers, as well as 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

would accomplish the stated objectives 

of the proposed rule, and at the same 

time, reduce the economic impact on 

small businesses. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1221 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Infants and 

children, Labeling, Law enforcement, 

Safety, and Toys. 

Therefore, the Commission proposes 

to amend 16 CFR part 1221 as follows: 

PART 1221—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

PLAY YARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 1221 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–314, 

section 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008). 

2. Add § 1221.3 to read as follows: 

§ 1221.3 Play yard bassinet accessory 

misassembly provision. 

(a) In addition to complying with 

section 2.4 of ASTM F406–12a, comply 

with the following, along with the 

accompanying footnote: 

(1) 2.5 Other References: CAMI 

Newborn Dummy (Department of 

Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Drawing No. SA–1001). 

(See Fig. A1.38.) 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) Instead of complying with section 

3.1.9 of ASTM F406–12a, comply with 

the following: 

(1) 3.1.9 key structural elements, n— 

side assemblies, end assemblies, 

mattress supports, or stabilizing bars 

that create the occupant retention area, 

or the components that provide the 

supporting frame and/or means of 

attachment for a bassinet/cradle 

accessory. (See Fig. A1.39.) 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) In addition to complying with 

section 3.1.26 of ASTM F406–12a, 

comply with the following: 

(1) 3.1.27 bassinet/cradle accessory, 

n—a supported sleep surface that 

attaches to a non-full-size crib or play 

yard, designed to convert the product 

into a bassinet/cradle intended to have 

a horizontal sleep surface while in a rest 

(non-rocking) position. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(d) Instead of complying with section 

5.19 of ASTM F406–12a, comply with 

the following: 

(1) 5.19 Bassinet/Cradle Accessories 

Missing Key Structural Elements: 

(2) 5.19.1 Bassinet/cradle 

accessories that have all key structural 

elements attached permanently to the 

bassinet/cradle accessory, or by any 

permanent means, prohibiting their 

removal from the bassinet/cradle 

accessory, are exempt from the 

following key structural element 

requirements. For the purpose of this 

section, a mattress pad without key 

structural elements attached 

permanently is not considered a key 

structural element. 

(3) 5.19.2 Bassinet/cradle 

accessories that require consumer 

assembly of key structural element(s), 

and can be assembled and attached to 

the product with any key structural 

element(s) missing, shall meet either 

5.19.2.1, or 5.19.2.2 when each key 

structural element not attached 

permanently is removed. For the 

purpose of this section, a mattress pad 

without key structural elements 

attached permanently is not considered 

a key structural element. 

(4) 5.19.2.1 The bassinet/cradle 

accessory shall collapse, such that any 

part of the mattress pad contacts the 

bottom floor of the play yard, or is not 

able to support the newborn CAMI 

dummy when tested to 8.31. 

(5) 5.19.2.2 The bassinet/cradle 

accessory sleep surface shall tilt by 

more than 30 degrees when tested to 

8.31. 

(6) 5.19.3 Rationale: The bassinet/ 

cradle missing key structural elements 

requirements were included to address 

IDI 110825CAA2853. Bassinet or cradle 

accessory misassembly initially may not 

be visually evident to the consumer. If 

the accessory with omitted 

component(s) supports the 7 lbm. 

newborn CAMI dummy without a 

catastrophic and obvious change to the 

sleep surface, a consumer might 

continue to use the accessory and place 

a child in danger inadvertently. 

(e) In addition to complying with 8.30 

of ASTM F406–12a, comply with the 

following: 

(1) 8.31 Bassinet and Cradle 

Accessory Sleep Surface Collapse/Tilt. 

(2) 8.31.1 Determine the number of 

removable (i.e., not attached 

permanently to the accessory) key 

structural elements used in the 

assembly of the bassinet/cradle 

accessory and number them 1 through 

n, until all removable elements are 

numbered. 

(3) 8.31.2 Assemble the bassinet/ 

cradle accessory to the product 

according to manufacturer’s 

instructions. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52276 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(4) 8.31.3 Establish a horizontal 

reference plane by placing an 

inclinometer on the floor of the testing 

area, and then zero the inclinometer. 

(5) 8.31.4 Remove key structural 

element #1 used in the assembly of the 

bassinet/cradle accessory, and attempt 

to assemble the accessory back onto the 

product. 

(6) 8.31.4.1 If the accessory can be 

assembled onto the product without 

element #1, proceed to 8.31.5. 

(7) 8.31.4.2 If the accessory cannot 

be assembled onto the product without 

element #1, the accessory shall be 

considered to meet 5.19.2. Proceed to 

8.31.7. 

(8) 8.31.5 Place a newborn CAMI 

dummy in the center of the sleep 

surface, oriented parallel to the longest 

side of the bassinet/cradle accessory. 

(See Fig. A1.40.) Determine visually 

whether the bassinet/cradle accessory 

collapses or it no longer supports the 

newborn CAMI within 2 seconds. 

(9) 8.31.6 If collapse does not occur, 

measure the sleep surface’s angle of 

incline relative to the horizontal plane 

established in 8.31.3 at the location(s) 

most likely to meet the angle 

requirement in 5.19.2.2. Record this 

angle. (See Fig. A1.41.) 

(10) 8.31.7 Replace the removed key 

structural element. 

(11) 8.31.8 Repeat 8.31.4–8.31.7 

removing and replacing each key 

structural element (identified in 8.31.1) 

one at a time, starting with #2 through 

n and evaluating the resulting 

condition. 

(f) In addition to Figure A1.37 of 

ASTM F406–12a, use the following: 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP29AU12.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 52277 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 

Dated: August 23, 2012. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21169 Filed 8–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0513; FRL–9721–3] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; California; South Coast Air 

Quality Management District; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gases 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a permitting rule submitted for the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (District) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The State is required under Part 

C of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) to adopt and implement a SIPapproved Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit program. 

This SIP revision proposes to 

incorporate District Rule 1714— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

for Greenhouse Gases, into the SIP to 

establish a PSD permit program for preconstruction review of certain new and 

modified major stationary sources that 

emit or may emit greenhouse gases 

(GHGs). Because the State does not 

currently have a SIP-approved PSD 

program within the District, the District 

will continue to be subject to the 

Federal Implementation Program (FIP) 

for pollutants other than GHGs that are 

also subject to the PSD program. 

Currently, the District issues PSD 

permits according to the FIP through a 

delegation agreement with EPA. We are 

soliciting public comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action after consideration of comments 

received. 

DATES: Any comments must be 

submitted no later than September 28, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0513, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. 

Information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected should be clearly 

identified as such and should not be 

submitted through www.regulations.gov 

or email. www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP29AU12.029</GPH>